Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.

Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.

The judge at a July 7 hearing dropped the contempt charge, a petty misdemeanor that carries up to 30 days in jail.

Stowers couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney in the contempt case, Deputy Public Defender Susan Arnett, said he wasn't treated fairly.

"I don't think there's anything about saying 'Thank you, Jesus' that rises to the level of contemptuous behavior in this case," she told The Honolulu Advertiser.

Stowers is a devoutly religious man active in his church who spontaneously expressed his thanks to the higher power in which he believed, she said.

Family members and Stowers' pastor at Assembly of God Church, Iakopo Sale, who watched from the gallery were "very upset that those words could land somebody in jail," Arnett said.

Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

>>>Oh, spare us the "victim" crap, this time. The judge gave an order, the defendant did not comply, the judge decided the order had not been relayed properly and dropped the matter. Simple, isn't it?<<<

The ACLU will be contacting you shortly to ask if you will appear in one of their anti-Christian commercials.

Why on earth would a judge order someone not to show emotion when the verdict was read? What does he think people are? Robots? It doesn't sound like what he did necessarily qualified as an outburst. I agree, if the guy had thanked allah, it probably would have been given a pass.

6
posted on 07/14/2006 8:34:16 PM PDT
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

"Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son. But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail."

"So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." (Mathew 10: 32-33).

No, not really. The trial was over. Removing him from the courtroom by placing him in jail accomplishes nothing. Were it in the middle of the case and the judge needed to maintain courtroom decorum, it would be one thing, but the trial was over and he was leaving. What was the point of arresting him and preventing his departure other than just a little power trip on the part of the judge?

This part was left out of the excerpt: Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not." I'm sorry that is just wrong.

11
posted on 07/14/2006 8:39:41 PM PDT
by FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

The judge gave an order, the defendant did not comply, the judge decided the order had not been relayed properly and dropped the matter.

Simple, isn't it?

Nope. Being told about the order would help.

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

And in the next case, His Honor told the parties to tapdance while he read the verdict. And after that, he ordered the parties to stand on their hands and say "moolah moolah" when he read the verdict. He closed the day by ordering the parties jointly sing "Nearer My God to Thee" as he walked out of the courtroom.

Quite frankly, I think anyone in this judges courtroom is a victim. The guy sounds like a control freak. Jailing someone for a spontaneous show of human emotion is ridiculous. Ordering that you'll do so means the guy's a common variety, run-of-the-mill j**k a**.

> He's a victim of poor judgement by the judge. But the family is blaming it all on anti-Christianism, when a simpler explanation is claimed, and possible.

The judge didn't say "no show of emotion" for nothing. I infer that there had been warnings about previous "non-verbal gestures and outbursts" throughout the trial. I'll bet the judge was very tired of disruptions.

I don't think it has a thing to do with "thanking Jesus". It has everything to do with maintaining order in a court of law. Judges maintain order by restricting sound and motion; nothing prohibited the defendent from closing his eyes and saying a silent prayer of thanks, for example. It was disobedience, not the particular words, that got him in trouble.

Think about it -- defendents get in trouble for disruptive outbursts all the time, typically having nothing to do with Jesus. If this were a leftist claiming victimhood, we'd be jumping up and down on him. If it was a Muslim who shouted "allahu akabar", we'd want to string him up for disrespect. This time the defendent happens to "Thank Jesus", and we're all sympathetic? Sheesh, must be a slow news day.

36
posted on 07/14/2006 9:58:26 PM PDT
by dayglored
(Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)

"So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." (Mathew 10: 32-33).

I infer that there had been warnings about previous "non-verbal gestures and outbursts" throughout the trial. I'll bet the judge was very tired of disruptions.

But at the point where he was aquitted the trial was effectively over and then there's the no small matter of the judge not letting him simply apologise and leave. Instead he locks him up in jail after there is no more trial to disrupt.

42
posted on 07/14/2006 10:23:31 PM PDT
by FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

I tried to google up more background on the case, but can't find anything except this story. It would be interesting to see what it was really about. While I generally respect jury verdicts, juries have been known to acquit a person against overwhelming evidence (O.J. Simpson) just because they didn't like the law/cops/judge etc. Of course, many folks have been bad-rapped by false witnesses and overzealous prosecutors on "child abuse" charges.

Be curious to know if the victim was actually abused by someone, or if this is just a case of a parent spanking a kid and being charged.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.